WMAP ‘proof’ of big bang fails normal radiological standards

Satellite maps of the big bang?

The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) satellite1 was launched with the intention of mapping the very
small anisotropies (temperature fluctuations) in the cosmic microwave radiation
(CMB) (figure 1). After the successful mission of the COBE (COsmic Background Explorer)
satellite2 George Smoot
as team leader built WMAP for NASA and the data obtained resulted in him being awarded
the Nobel prize in Physics last year.3,4

The anisotropies in the 2.7 K CMB temperature maps contain information regarding
the radiation from the fireball 380,000 years after the alleged big bang, it is
claimed. These very small 40 µK to 70 µK anisotropies represent the
monopole term of a spherical multipole expansion of the cleaned data. These were
interpreted as the seeds for early galaxy formation. The dipole term was extracted,
also giving a very smooth 2.7 K temperature but slightly different to the temperature
determined from the monopole term. Nevertheless it was close to 2.7 K also. On the
basis of the WMAP analysis, many papers have claimed evidence for details of the
big bang theory, such as the amounts of alleged ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark
energy’.5

How well do the claims stack up?

However, this year, an expert in radiology published two papers6,7 which
prompted another8 in the
journal Progress in Physics9
claiming that the analysis was flawed under standard radiological (analysis of radio
waves) methodology. He argued that the maps contain no information of cosmological
significance, certainly no information about the creation and history of the early
universe.

WMAP was not equipped with an instrument that could measure the absolute intensity
of any microwave signal it might encounter. Whereas COBE not only took a differential
radiometer, it also took an absolute spectrometer—FIRAS. WMAP was only equipped
with a differential radiometer, which could only measure the differences
in the signals coming from any two parts of the sky. So the data can never
specify the equivalent temperature of any particular region of the cosmos.

Galactic foreground signal

To add to that, the signal was swamped by the thousand-times-stronger foreground
signal from the Galaxy. To remove this massive signal, data was recorded in five
frequency bands and in the analysis the sky was sliced up into different regions,
which were differenced. Then the WMAP team utilized

‘ … a linear combination of data in these bands, essentially adding
and subtracting data until a null point is reached. In doing so, the WMAP team is
invoking a priori knowledge which cannot be confirmed experimentally. Thus,
the WMAP team makes the assumption that foreground contamination is frequency dependent,
while the anisotropy is independent of frequency. This approach, however, is completely
unsupported by the experimental data … ’10

Figure 2. (A) Magnetic resonance image (MRI) of a human wrist acquired
at 8 Tesla with a signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio of about 40/1. (B)
The same MRI image as in (A) after the addition of random noise, resulting in a
maximum S/N ratio of about 2.5/1. Clearly such low S/N impedes any sensible interpretation
of the image. (From Robitaille6).

The authors contrasted this with standard NMR spectroscopy, where papers would be
laughed at if they tried to take data in the region of a highly dominant contaminant
signal. For example, in measuring the 1 H NMR spectrum of samples dissolved
in water, the signal from the protons in water itself is huge. So it would be an
exercise in futility to try to measure signals from the sample around the same region.

There are certainly techniques for removing this signal, but this means manipulating
the signal at the source. Thus it is common to use heavy water that replaces
protons with deuterons. But in the WMAP case, it is impossible to manipulate the
source.

Linear combinations

The author shows that by taking different weighting factors in the linear combinations,
a different null set, hence different maps of the universe, could be arrived at
if the WMAP team had decided to emphasize a frequency band other than V band (61
GHz). Also, for the analysis of the one-year data set and the three-year data set
different weights were chosen, but that is not consistent with the assumption that
the sought-after cosmological parameters are stationary in the timescale of the
cosmos. An altered set of such parameters is likely the result of different data
processing. Moreover, the requirement that the signals of cosmological significance
are frequency independent has never been proven.

The author also demonstrates that it is impossible to obtain a signal-to-noise (S/N)
of much more than unity from the WMAP anisotropies. And from comparisons within
his radiological experience, he shows that this is insufficient to obtain any useful
information from the maps. E.g. clear maps of body parts obtained at higher resolution
become amorphous blurs even at S/N ratios greater than WMAP (figure 2). Hence, the
WMAP team is unable to confirm that the anisotropic ‘signal’ observed
at any given point is not noise. He says,

‘Therefore, any discussion relative to the cosmological significance of these
results is premature.’11

He discusses from his own experience the problem of the formation of ghost images
which result from the removal of powerful signals from weak signals. Because of
the cleaning techniques used by the WMAP team it is highly likely that a significant
portion of the maps contain spurious ghosts.

Difference maps

The WMAP team attempts to establish a ‘most likely’ anisotropy map using mathematical tools, but they have no means of verifying the validity of the solution.—P.-M. Robitaille, radiology expert

Possibly the most disturbing aspect of the discussion is that when the data were
made available, only one-year and three-year averages were published. And the three-year
data contains the one-year data. Why is that? Why not publish each successive year,
so high resolution difference maps can be made. The WMAP team only published the
difference map of their one-and three-year sets, with decreased resolution. Very
fishy! Of course the intention is to show that that map doesn’t change over
time, but why the large pixels?

Robitaille also makes the point that the WMAP data has no depth information—it
only has information at most of the direction of the source. He says the maps resemble
the 2-dimensional X-ray images in medicine. Therefore, by their very nature, these
maps are incapable of supporting any model of the universe other than a 2-dimensional
flat model.

‘In actuality, the WMAP team must overcome virtually every hurdle known to
imaging: foreground contamination and powerful dynamic range issues, low signal
to noise, poor contrast, limited sample knowledge, lack of reproducibility, and
associated resolution issues. It is clear that the generation of a given anisotropy
map depends strictly on the arbitrary weighting of component images. The WMAP team
attempts to establish a “most likely” anisotropy map using mathematical
tools, but they have no means of verifying the validity of the solution. Another
team could easily produce its own map and, though it may be entirely different,
it would be equally valid.’12

Dipole term

The author however admits that there is something significant in the data:

‘The only significant observations relative to this satellite are related
to the existence of a dipole signal.’12

This confirms the findings of the NASA COBE satellite. Using the FIRAS instrument,
COBE was able to determine a CMB monopole temperature as 2.730 ± 0.001 K
and a dipole temperature of 2.717 ± 0.003 K.13 These temperatures are not overlapping and the
FIRAS instrument had tremendous signal to noise. Hence the difference between these
numbers remains highly significant at the 99% significance level.

All of the cosmological constants which are presented by the WMAP team are devoid
of true meaning, precisely because the images are so unreliable.—P.-M. Robitaille,
radiology expert

In short, only COBE was able to really measure the monopole temperature which the
author claims can be attributed to specular reflection14 off the earth’s oceans. COBE was placed
in a 900-km Earth orbit. WMAP, on the other hand, was placed at the second Lagrange
point 1.5 million km from Earth, and because it had no absolute instrument, it could
not make a direct monopole measurement. Its DMR (Differential Microwave Radiometer) is only sensitive to the weaker
dipole term. The meaning of the different temperature from the dipole term is that
our solar system is moving through space, which is bathed in a weak emission of
microwave radiation—source unknown. And this is not the same source as the
monopole term. Certainly after the future launch of the PLANCK satellite, which
has both an absolute and a differential radiometer, any doubt can be resolved whether
the monopole term comes from the earth or the cosmos.

Conclusion

Robitaille summarises his conclusions:

‘The WMAP satellite also highlights that significant variability exists in
the point sources and in the galactic foreground. Relative to the Universe, the
findings imply isotropy over large scales, not anisotropy. All of the cosmological
constants which are presented by the WMAP team are devoid of true meaning, precisely
because the images are so unreliable. Given the tremendous dynamic range
problems, the inability to remove the galactic foreground, the possibility of generating
galactic ghosts through “cleaning”, the lack of signal to noise, the
lack of reproducibility, the use of coefficients which fluctuate on a yearly basis,
and the problem of monitoring results on a cosmological timescale, attempts to determine
cosmological constants from such data fall well outside the bounds of proper image
interpretation [emphasis added].’12

Further Reading

References

The COBE satellite was developed by NASA Goddard to measure
the diffuse infrared and microwave radiation from the early universe to the limits
set by our astrophysical environment. It was launched November 18, 1989 and carried
three instruments, a Diffuse Infrared Background Experiment (DIRBE) to search for
the cosmic infrared background radiation, a Differential Microwave Radiometer (DMR)
to map the cosmic radiation sensitively, and a Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer
(FIRAS) to compare the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation with
a precise blackbody. Each COBE instrument yielded a major cosmological discovery.
See <lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/> Return to text.

Ironically, just after this award, new discoveries show that
the CMB can’t be from the big bang because they don’t cast the right
shadows—see Hartnett, J.,
The Big Bang fails another test, Journal of Creation 20(3):15–16,
2006. Return to text.

There is a not-so-subtle connection here with a need to support
the ruling paradigm. The relative proportions of these exotic mass/energies that
supposedly contribute to the state of the universe are needed such that the standard
Friedmann model is not excluded. In short there is an a priori reason to believe
the WMAP contains real information. Return to text.

Robitaille, P-M, On the origins of the CMB: Insight from the
COBE, WMAP, and Relikt-1 satellites, Progress in Physics 1:19–23,
January 2007. Return to text.

Rabounski, D, The relativistic effect of the deviation between
the CMB temperatures obtained by the COBE satellite, Progress in Physics
1:24–26, January 2007. Return to text.

This journal is not a first ranked journal but a web-based
online-only journal, so some caution should be exercised as to the findings mentioned
here. Nevertheless the research presented by the author seems reasonable, and he
is an expert in the area of radiological data analysis. The main reason he could
not publish in higher ranked journals is likely because of the controversial nature
of the argument—overturning a recent Nobel award. However with the launch
of the PLANCK satellite, the thesis can be tested. Return to text.

The monopole and dipole terms are the first and second terms
of a multipole expansion. A multipole expansion is a series expansion of the effect
produced by a given system in terms of an expansion parameter which becomes small
as the distance away from the system increases. Return to text.

Specular reflection means scattering from the surface of
the ocean in this case. Some wavelengths are absorbed and some reflected.
Return to text.

Anthony P said “Thanks for your … website, it’s really easy to navigate and it is a massive bonus to be able to read back-issues of your magazines … without your ministry I probably wouldn’t be a Christian today. Thank you so much and keep up the good work.” So help us do just that! Support this site